One of the things we can all thank Steve Stockman for is the gray mist of swill his anonymous supporters brought to this blog beginning just about a week ago. As some of you know I am planning to take a step back from this hallowed forum but because of the barrage of BS from Stockman’s people I will have to make an effort to stick around until just after July 23. It is absolutely amazing that Stockman’s Web presence should consist of this little cadre of typists unwilling to show their support using their real names. Quite a stand-up crew, this Stockman campaign.

Foremost certainly is Pam. With my 8 years or so managing medium-traffic blogs, I have learned some things about online personalities, and here are my guesses and thoughts regarding the Steve Stockman troll called Pam:

Pam is a semi-retarded toad obligated to wear a police tracking device, whose mental affliction erupts irregularly, such that her immediate family members are EXTREMELY jumpy whenever they must accompany her in public places. If not for the little bottles of magic in her medicine cabinet, Pam would be in prison.

Any cause or organization that Pam supports is worthy of scrutiny. This is not to say the demented sow does not stumble upon the occasional truffle, but any spot those trotters have been digging is a place where rational people should step carefully.

Any group that gives Pam a soapbox should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Her mind does not work in a remotely linear fashion, and therefore the more she talks the less sense she makes.

Because I believe – from what we have read here – that Pam is playing an active role in the Steve Stockman campaign, I think Steve Stockman is a dangerously misinformed jackass whose talking points regarding local issues are coming from people who won’t allow themselves to be identified in public. Steve Stockman had a number of options for quickly injecting himself back into public life in Loudoun County, and he chose badly.

I don’t believe Pam even lives in Loudoun County, but is a Maryland resident who comes here for psychiatric treatment. If such a living, breathing case of epistemological toxicity were to reside in Loudoun, surely we would all know about it by now. Maybe she met Steve Stockman at the CVS while picking up a prescription.

I would like to point out that all of the observations I have made here are, in my view, positive appraisals, and therefore everything I am saying about Pam is meant to edify and elevate her, and in the end to make people think more highly of her. That is why I am taking the time to write about her now.

Pam is a f–king crazy bitch. Harking back to the bullet point above, I would note that I make this statement, in my own mind, using a 1949 beatnik-era tone of voice, in which “Pam is a f–king crazy bitch” actually means she is a boss chick. So, again, this is a positive appraisal.

Special thanks to Steve Stockman for impacting the level and tone of debate on this blog in such a striking manner. One has to wonder, after 20 years of total public silence on every important issue facing Loudoun County, how someone suddenly makes themselves relevant again – and in a very short amount of time. Finding a bunch of anonymous people to sling mud on one’s behalf is one approach. It might work better, however, if those mud slingers are not total whackjobs.

And “whackjob,” I will have you know, in my mind is praise of the highest order.

We have a very important decision to make, and all of you are thoughtful people. You need to think about this.

Scott York has a record, not one to brag about–voting consistently to raise our taxes, never questioning staff. Voting for $1.30, is just ONE of the things he has done that he does not want to discuss.

Scott York will not commit to anything for the future. The supposed benefit is he will put his machine on “our” side, supposedly, this time. But his name is not so widely appreciatied this time, and name recognition may be a bad thing for him, and for those who run with him.

Steve Stockman has a record of fiscal conservatism and common sense. He has not been “lucky,” he has not had the poor judgment to try to elect the likes of Andrea McGimsey and Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller, etc. A Georgetown Law grad, he has real world experience running a business, and he has expertise on our County infrastructure having been on the Loudoun Water Board and the BoS, twice. He knows politics, a Reagan appointee to the Department of Energy, and he can run a meeting (Scott York’s big plus?).

We just have to be honest with ourselves about “why” we would support Scott York, and if those reasons are good. Of course Stockman will vote to revoke the Chesapeake Bay if this Board adopts it lame duck, Steve will vote to get out of ICLEI and to remove the references to Agenda 21 in our Comprehensive Plan, he will try to get the tax rate back to $1.00, will opt out of MWAA to negotiate a responsible deal– not a blank check, he will support the rural economy, and not re-fight the downzoning war (that was part of his statement) and will work to make our County competitive- the first step of which is to lower taxes so businesses and others will want to locate here, and he wants to reduce the red tape and unelected bureaucrats power, which has also given us a reputation as a crazy place to try to do business. He has positions. So now you have a choice.

To quote the Bible, Paul said, “Arm yourselves” and the first piece of equipment he says to don is the belt of truth… Eph. 6 1-18. Take a minute and click on the link below.

We are at a cross roads, what do we really stand for? what do we really believe? do we have honor? Stand for nothing, fall for anything… please we do not need to fall for “anything” and we can stand for solid principle.

That’s where you are wrong, Pam. He is widely the most popular BOS member on the current Board. He brings that popularity to the Republican ticket this year. Everyone on the Ticket has embraced York, including Delguadio. A mere handful of misfits in the LCRC are the lone holdouts regarding York. And only ONE candidate has not endorsed Scott thus far. Don’t hold your breath waiting for her to do so, either. She’s in the proverbial “rock and a hardplace” right now. If she does endorse him..Pam and her cohorts will crucify the woman. If she doesn’t, she’s seen as the outsider who can’t even unite with her party for the win this year.
One hell of a place to be sitting.

Written by DC Beltway Bandit about 7 years ago.

Pam, I believe in your most recent post you unwittingly proved ALL of Joe’s (rather astute) points on your motives. Wow and then you bring out the Bible to excuse your vitriolic rhetoric? I can’t tell if your comment is sacrilegious or did you neurons cross fire because it is Sunday morning, none the less you need to grab a cup of de-cafe and walk away from the computer.

I hate to break the news to you, but Chairman York will remain Chair for our County.
Shhh…don’t feed the trolls.

Written by Newbie about 7 years ago.

I’m not voting for ANYONE who voted for ICLEI whether by ignorance or design.

Written by HFTB about 7 years ago.

You all should visit http://www.stockman2011.com and read about Steve’s commendable record of public service, including serving on the LCSA Board from 1991 to 1999. So much for the myth of his “years of total public silence on every important issue facing Loudoun County.” There is no doubt his is a true fiscal conservative and that is exactly what this county needs. That’s why I support him in this debate.

Thanks for another totally hilarious post (in more ways than one), Joe. Haven’t laughed so hard in a long time!

Written by Richie Rich about 7 years ago.

Scott York and the previous Republican Board increased taxes by as much as 200%. The current Board has maintained average tax bills at a relatively flat rate. When you factor in the addition of Public Safety back into the tax rate, average tax bills were flat or declined during the current Board of Supervisors. York is not as popular in the County as you are projecting and the Republicans are making a huge gamble on York. I guess the only factor that will convince those of you who think you know it all will learn if you fail. The big question has not been answered and you ARE taking a big gamble. Maybe you’ve already concluded that you have NO chance with Steve Stockman so you must go with the best of the bad alternatives by aligning with York. Republicans are underestimating this cycle based on previous cycles. Many believe that the election results from previous years with McDonnell and 2010 elecions are indicative of future results. This might be true, or it also might be true that many Democratic votors were burned out after the Obama election. Those same voters are reenergizing for 2012 and it wil have an effect on local elections this year. It is evidenced by the number of contested races in our party this year. Republican candidates think if they win the nomination, they will be a shoe in for election in the General. This is why so many are being contested. The election will ultimately determine the end result and with York, a liberal, tax and spend politician with questionable morals ($10,000 from Chevy Chase Bank????) is not likely to go over well with Loudoun voters this time around. Can you say failed wager?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Well Act, I think hands down everyone is now on notice who to nudge for a hint that they’re being annoying. Joe is the undisputed king.

HFTB, I went to the link, and there is simply the fact that he was on the Board there. Which is good, and was never in dispute.

I’m still seeing nothing on any of the issues listed by Pam that he will fix.

If he knew what ICLEI was, knew how bad it is, and would not enter into it (by co sponsoring the Green Business Challenge), I’d like to know why, as a business owner he was not either in front of the BoS educating them on the reason NOT to support that, and on the things he found wrong with ICLEI?

Why did he not write to one of the papers to warn people of it?

Did he mobilize the Chamber of Commerce against it?

“Pam” has now heard of how bad it is, and she promises he’ll get rid of it.

Good for “Pam”.

While the tax rate was climbing as local government ballooned faster than the rate of population growth under the 99 BoS, did he ever address the BoS during budget time to make suggestions on how to trim that back? Did he urge the Chamber to do so? He was no longer on the board of the sanitation authority, so it certainly would have been appropriate as a private citizen and business owner.

“Pam” says he’ll fix it. Good for “Pam”.

Under the 03 BoS, the tax rate was under a dollar for one year–and I hear we’re going to get back there.

How?

Did Mr. Stockman help craft that, through any suggestions that were implemented by the 03 BoS? Did he address them during the budget? The Chamber? The LCRC? Write any letters about it?

He has a letter on the LTM, addressing only the Raspberry Falls issue, and not being kind to Loudoun Water in the process.

As Raspberry Falls was developing when he was still on the sanitation authority, and there began to be severe problems in that area as he was leaving the sanitation authority, where was he on that?

Any direct intervention on the issue?

Any remarks to the BoS?

Any letters then?

Any outreach to his former colleagues in the utilities to deal with it before it got worse and worse and worse?

I’m sorry, I see nothing.

If there’s something, there needs to be a way to get at that info other than “Pam”s.

And after so much “Pam”, and so little apparent during a time when I attended most BoS meetings, religiously read all the papers, and was on the LCRC, I see no reason to go back with a microscope looking for any evidence that offers promise toward any of “Pam”‘s claims.

If Mr. Stockman had been pounding pavement, holding events, speaking at meetings and writing his thoughts for even the past four months, I’d have more to go on.

I know “Pam”, and she’ll be on to the next secret club mission soon.

And angels will be demons and vice versa, and I seriouslu doubt we’ll have a $1 tax rate, and I seriously doubt we’ll get rid of all the Agenda 21, because other than disbanding the energy committee and not joining the Green Business Challenge, everything coming out of the Comp Plan requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

With so much, it may require a revision.

That’s all the 99 BoS did for four years.

It costs time, money, and a whole lot of strife.

Think the downzoning, the CPAMs, and the CBPO. Times x.

“Pam” is going to have to start picking and choosing her hope and change promises.

Still no sale, and I’m sorry “Pam”, I don’t think you and the rest of the anonymous will be able to back up what you’re promising.

Even if the whole county flocks to your side.

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

Yes, Barbara. Joe has always been my hero when it comes to blog etiquette. He has recently lapsed from his Altziemer’s phase and is firing on all neurons. Let’s hope it lasts abit longer as it is becoming more rare of late and ire promotes some of his most masterful work. We are Joe!

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Richie, there are only two contested races here.

And the one for Chair is only one vote.

I’m more concerned about how the Dulles rep will respond to issues in my district, because he is the one most directly accountable to me.

If I weren’t satisfied with who’s running, Matt Letourneau would not be uncontested.

Yes, simply wearing an R is no guarantee. For either York OR Stockman.

For a complete unkown (to 90%+ of the current population) to have that R make what difference it might, everyone has to get on board with “Pam”, and wholeheartedly trust everything she is saying.

I don’t.

Yes, “I guess the only factor that will convince those of you who think you know it all will learn if you fail.”

I can recall one colossal failure in my corner of the county.

Rock solid social and fiscal conservatives were so energized by the reelection of George W. Bush, that they decided to get rid of my state delegate, moderate Gary Reese.

Several people whom I knew on committee approached me to introduce me to a young youth minister, who they lent their support to (from miles away) for my representative.

Some powerful conservatives worked very hard for this young man, so clean cut and saying the right words.

Reese lost the primary, and the minister’s campaign gradually unravelled toward November, where it ended up that I had to stand, as a good little committee member honboring my pledge, at my local polling place handing out sample ballots, while the yes, actual crackhead two weeks sober (the volunteer from a prison fellowship who was working the minister’s campaign) got into fights with my neighbors.

The minister had a driving record as long as my arm, and had a lot of campaign hijinks which backfired or in some cases were actionable.

He called me several times during the campign, with the usual (for me) thing: introduce me to people as someone you support, research the issues, etc.

I told him I was happy with my current delegate. He was responsive to community issues, and worked with most people well.

This boy eventually tried an actual “Come to Jesus” on me, with full ministerial tone: “What are you holding back? What are you keeping hidden that prevents you from supporting me?”

I was a good little pledge holder. I didn’t rip his head off. I reiterated that I was fine with my current delegate.

I wrote in a name in that election, because after the trainwreck that had been given me as a pledged R, I could not in conscience support the kid. I did not want him as my rep, because he was clueless, and neither did I want whoever had picked that peg to replace my existing rep deciding what I had to work with from outside of the district.

He was slaughtered, and we got Caputo for two terms.

We were the only Loudoun precinct in the 67th, so his daughter ran us, and that’s how Stevens Miller delayed two schools (one for a third year) so the delegate’s daughter could try for a commission on a nonpermitted use in the Transition Zone.

Next year, Freedom HS will have 2100 students (it is built for 1600) because of that delay.

They will be riding a double bus system to unused classrooms in Mercer to manage the gross overcrowding, because the three years’ late middle school will be open, and South Riding’s middle schoolers can come back from the other side of the airport.

After the ministerial disaster and the screaming crackhead election day, I talked to some of the folks in the local party about why they thought he was a good idea.

They didn’t know—live and learn.

Did they suffer for it?

No, I and my neighbors did.

I COULD have worked harder, for people outside my district, so they could have their (controllable by proxy?) place filler, but what would that have gained me?

I didn’t know anything about him, and I didn’t take someone else’s word for it.

I’m glad I didn’t.

But I still paid for it for the people who picked him out for me.

Epic fail.

We have lots of little groups that focus on their one issue.

They often do their one issue very well.

Their issue is not the only issue in the county.

I’d rather take York’s experience and rely on my good prospect for Dulles to work toward best solutions on all the issues, with a sensible majority.

Live and learn cuts both ways.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Act, I’m just hoping I get the nudge before I get the blast!

Written by Lovisa about 7 years ago.

Here I thought thatJoe had become “kinder and gentler”!!!

Don’t pop a tonsil, fella!

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

Don’t pop a tonsil? Is that a common Flemish term? POP A TONSIL??????

Written by Wolverine about 7 years ago.

ACT, having been married for over 40 years to a “Flamande” and thus being more or less dragooned into the Flemish-American culture, I would say that, if you get them pissed off enough, they are quite capable of helping you to “pop that tonsil.”

Written by Greg Ahlemann about 7 years ago.

Note to self…stay on Joe’s good side! Too funny. Again “Pam” failed to recognize, ignored or just did not understand the dynamics four years ago which I covered in a previous thread. I do like the Bible verse. Particularly, Eph 6:13. I have that one on my left forearm. I wouldn’t throw that one out there for a BOS race. A bit dramatic. Is this “standing in the evil day”?

Written by BlackOut about 7 years ago.

It’s about at this point, “Pam” changes her moniker…and continues, and continues, and continues…

Can you imagine if it was “pam” and leej going at it. Joe, do you have any storage limits on this website? (maybe that would be a good thing to bring up as an excuse)

The Board voted this week on establishing a grievance process for aides to the Board of Supervisors. This comes in possible response to recent blog comments that several of the Board members have been treating their aides in a less then professional way. Supervisor Burk made a motion to establish a grievance process for aides and several of the Supervisors voted in favor… Burk, McGimsey, York and Waters. This is interesting considering all of the talk about McGimsey’s abuse of her assistants on the various blogs. Another person mentioned that there are some video’s of one of the male members “who has been around awhile” that has physically threatened their aides or other female Board members on the BOS. Rumor has it that these incidences took place in the hallway behind the dias and were recorded by cell phone cameras. One of the planning commissioners mentioned that this person (Supervisor) has also had problems with similar situations with individual planning commissioners which they had only a voice recording of an event. No one has actually produced these recordings to my knowledge but based on the buzz, these recordings must exist because many mentions have been made about them by various people at different times and different contexts. It seems all too coincidental that a vote was taken on this matter as more about these incidences has come to light. Usually these types of records are released as close to the election to have the most damage they can possibly have. I suspect these will be the carreer ending types of events for those involved.

Babs, it is scary how our eventual paths for an electoral outcome have shadowed one after the other. Your entry above actually occurred before I had to take a similar course in 2007, for differing reasons.
I read elsewhere, and wanted to confirm for you on the intraweb… If lc2007 is involved in this Truth movement, I have no knowledge of it, but it did get interesting thanking thru some of those players.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

“To quote the Bible, Paul said, “Arm yourselves” and the first piece of equipment he says to don is the belt of truth… Eph. 6 1-18. Take a minute and click on the link below.

Don’t bother to try to comment on Barbara Curtis’ bog site. If she does not agree wth you 100% (i.e., if you are not saying “your the BEST, Barbara!!”) she will not post your comment. If he DOES post your comment, she edits it to cast you in the most negative light possible. In short, she is disingenuous and is afraid of open discussion of her posted opinions. Don’t waste your time.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Dean, in that campaign I could not commit to a bad choice during the primary. I had a delegate who was remarkably responsive to our area, even though it made up such a tiny portion of our district.

None of the people who pushed that kid out there lived in the district, and some of them worked harder to get people to the polls for him than he did.

I was supposed to just sign on, because. That’s why I got the “Come to Jesus”, which I still find insulting to this day.

Turnout at that JUNE primary was .6%

And then two terms of Caputo, when we already HAD a Republican delegate.

The name I wrote in was the delegate I already had.

I can understand a group getting energized by a wave, and starting to put pegs in holes on a war table in their own little star chamber, but recruited pegs aren’t working for the people in the district, they’re working for whoever recruited them, until they get in (if they do) and do God knows what.

Adding lc2007 on top of that? Those who bleated about development while being almost fully funded by a corporation with a huge land development application in process?

We’re still suffering with some of their pegs–McG comes to mind.

No one playing any of these games is as anonymous as they think, and I’ve got more news for them: they aren’t “geniouses” either.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Eric, after your hsitory with her, that may not be universally true.

I’m wondering if Mrs. Curtis doesn’t know who “Pam” is, except under her real name? She may not enjoy that kind of gaming.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

I’ve seen her do it to others as well, Barb, not just me. Maybe not universally true but true enough. Given the amount of self-promotion that Curtis conducts and two links to her blogsite in Pam’s postings to date, I am beginnning to wonder if S-Pam is really more of a BC-Pam (even though that does not work so nicely with with a Monty Python reference…)??

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Funny how “Pam” uses the work of others to bolster her own screeds, whether the people she’s using at the moment know she’s doing it or not.

Mrs. Curtis is certainly entitled to support whomever she pleases.

How much of her info is coming from “Pam”, whom she may not know is “Pam”?

I remember Barbara “helping” Reese… if you can call it that. Needless to say, she didn’t do a very good job of connecting, relating with, or communicating in an intelligible fashion with anyone who showed up at the polls; which is just one of many reasons why Reese did quite horribly in that primary (especially in that specific precinct).

Contrary to Barbara’s lies and incoherent ramblings, Gary Reese was many things… but he was NOT a Republican. This was abundantly clear to a majority of the 67th district, which is why they overwhelmingly rejected his desire to represent them any longer. He solidified this when he actively worked to split the Republican vote by endorsing the Ultra-Liberal DEMOCRAT Caputo, who was later kicked out of office as well.

So, please take all of Barbara Munsey’s writings with a grain of salt! On election day, you dream of a person of her caliber fighting for the OTHER side – It makes your job significantly easier!

Written by HFTB about 7 years ago.

“Under the 03 BoS, the tax rate was under a dollar for one year–and I hear we’re going to get back there. How?”

Barb, a $1 tax rate is entirely possible. The new BoS will have their work cut out for them after 12 years of excessive tax hikes, out-of-control spending and not doing enough to attract new businesses, but I think they can get there by the end of their term, if real fiscal conservatives like Steve Stockman are elected. It’s going to take a fiscal discipline that has not existed for at least the past 12 years.

The tax rate was actually under a dollar for 2 years – 2006 and 2007. It could have been under 90 cents for 2 years had Scott York decided to vote with Delgaudio, Staton, Waters and Clem to keep the rate at 89 cents in 2007.

Instead, he voted for the 96 cents rate and the huge spending increases that came with it in the FY08 budget. The School Board operating budget increased by $87 million more than FY07 and elevated per-pupil spending to a level the county could not afford. The county operating budget increased by $40 million.

York’s record is not one of a fiscal conservative, in my opinion. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being a strong fiscal conservative and 1 being a complete spendthrift, I would give him a 3.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

“The School Board operating budget increased by $87 million more than FY07 and elevated per-pupil spending to a level the county could not afford.”

Wasn’t that under Geary Higgins’ school board? Are you, HFTB, anti-Higgins?

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

I take that back. Higgins was in the 2003 school board – I missed your shift to 08. That being said, school board spending pre student increased by 1/3 during Higgin’s tenure on the school board (a higher rate than any on record). So the question remains. If you are anti-York for approving increases to school spending (and associated tax increases – I am ignoring your confusion between tax rate and actual taxes paid) are you also anti-Higgins for doing the same thing at the school board level during his tenure?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

HFTB, I agree that it could be done.

I’m just reluctant to rely on the platitudes of some secret people who have very little idea of how to actually try to do it.

The school budget is a minefield of unfunded state and federal mandates, and those must be addressed beofre anyone takes an axe and starts hacking for the sake of an arbitrary number.

Any Comp Plan changes to remove every bit of Agenda 21 (which language, not by name, but by sustainability points, is present in every section) would be an equal minefield, and a far more expensive one.

Too many promises from secret squirrels other than the candidate (and I don’t mean you), and no roadmap to get there from the candidate either.

But it will all magically be okay.

I’ve seen absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that Stockman is anything to get remotely excited about, and the squirrels haven’t helped.

Eric, any opportunity for a blindside against Higgins, huh?
I’m thinking that on the heels of the “wildly” popular CBPO garbage, the dems set up this November in ways I cold never have facilitated. To see Geary’s competition embrace the CBPO in the 11th hour was a gift!

Written by HFTB about 7 years ago.

Eric, I really don’t know anything about Higgins. When was he on the SB? When Barb said the ’03 BoS’, I assume she meant the board that was elected in 2003, but actually served from 2004 through 2007. There’s also often confusion between fiscal year and calender year, because they are not in sync. The FY08 budget was adopted in April 2007 at the same time the tax rate was set for calender year 2007. I hope that clears up your confusion.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

A volunteer–just saw your stuff here.

June 14, 2005 primary:

179 Craddock, 50 Reese.

229 people in the dead of summer. That 179 surely is an OVERWHELMING number of people soundly rejecting Reese.

More like motivated activists getting less than 200 people to the polls to push their cutout.

Should look about like the convention, with perhaps the same result in November as Reese’s primary victor saw back then.

Have a nice day!

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

BPM,

Do you agree with HFTB that anyone who voted for an increasing school board budget and increased cost per student has a record that is “not one of a fiscal conservative”? That is all I am asking. It led to my question that HFTB sidestepped. When he wrote:

“I really don’t know anything about Higgins.”

I don’t see this as some unfair sideswipe. His record should be on the table, don’t you think. It is well documented right here:

Over his tenure (2000-2003) spending per student went from $6890 per child to $9194 per child – a 33% increase.

Now I understand that the budgets Geary enacted were the result of rapid residential development (not that it REALLY explains the increase in per student spending) but the very next thing he does is takes a bunch of money from the very same builders who were creating this requirement to increase school budget spending to fund his next campaign. That is not the sign of a fiscal conservative, imo.

Barbara Munsey – It’s as if you don’t realize the foolishness of your own posting. Please, allow me to clarify what you just wrote, and how it exemplifies how useless you are on an election day, so that it’s easier for you to understand.

In a district where YOU live, and where YOU know the voters, YOU strongly backed Reese (the sitting delegate) who was voted out of office by those living in YOUR PRECINCT by a ratio of 3 1/2 to 1! This is an overwhelming majority of the vote!

So, your political clout ADDED to Reese’s sad record in office accounted for an abysmal turn-out! This is a pretty solid explanation of my earlier posting that described Reese’s unpopularity and your inability to pull ANYONE to the polls and convince others to vote for those who you endorse… all in the neighborhood that YOU live in!

What part of this is difficult for you to comprehend?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

What part of a small group of anonymous people from outside of the area they wish to install a cutout in being able to mobilize sufficient small numbers for a small contest do you fail to understand?

My point was never about Reese’s great popularity, or my own supposed “clout”, but about a small group of activists working their butts off to push things in their preferred direction.

Something you look very foolish so rudely ignoring from your safe internet anonymity is how very bad the unvetted candidate was.

Nobody bothered to look at anything other than that they saw a supposed hole to fill, and they found a white guy who goes to church to do it.

If the tremendous clout of those amazing people was so resounding, why wasn’t Craddock my delegate instead of Caputo?

I can tell you why: because he was a lousy choice with no political experience, a bad record, and no brains for the endeavor.

And none of that mattered for those clever clever people with enough clout to get 179 people out of thousands to the polls in June, they didn’t care about actually electing someone, they cared about getting rid of Reese.

Gee, they “won”!

And set back Republican candidates and the party for years.

Wonderful candidate ran against Caputo, and did well, but not enough to win. It took the egregious behavior of the local Caputo people and amazing Jim LeMunyon to get rid of him.

Did any of the people who gave us the gift of Craddock work so very very hard to get rid of Caputo?

No, their “work” here was done.

And I see the very same thing by people in the pro-Stockman, anti-Ramadan, maybe even “Truth” bunch of anonymous trolls.

Maybe we’ll get their preferred candidate out of the convention.

And we’ll see how he does in November.

Don’t assume anyone has to rush to your ranks because of a small fait accompli like this convention. Just as no one rushed to the ranks for Craddock, including most of the people who agreed to put him on the November ballot. He got 800 votes in that one.

And the crackhead at the polls then was just lovely. We got lots of complaints about him, which also did great work for the party.

Barbara Munsey – I’m not sure if you’re purposely ignoring the obvious, or if you’re just oblivious to it. (My guess is that it’s a combination of the two.)

Despite your obvious bigotry against “white guys who go to church” I will again attempt to explain to you the holes in your vexed logic.

In the 2005 general election Kilgore was at the top of the ticket, where he lost by 6% points. In addition, your hero Gary Reese (former-R) endorsed Ultra-Liberal Caputo and was actively helping to split the Republican vote in Caputo’s favor in that same race! If you don’t understand how these factors could negatively affect a campaign, then you’re even more foolish than I originally thought.

And it was not a “small group of activists” that realized how worthless Gary Reese was… it was the republican VOTERS in the 67th district who decided that. What’s more is that in your own precinct you were an utter failure in your attempt to get even a third of your neighbors to support your RINO candidate of choice.

You can blame the loss of the seat on evil church-goers, or on who ever else you can imagine is responsible for not winning that district. But the simple fact remains that it’s your choice in Delegate who worked hard to elect a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT to represent the 67th!

Your political intelligence has proven to be nonexistent, and your personal judgment is skewed at best!

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

volunteer, if it was the voters of the district, then why were the votes able to be split with that endorsement?

If it was more than a small group of activists leveraging a summer primary, why wasn’t the trainwreck elected?

Again, you ignore that the chosen candidate was a disaster.

For those activists, actually getting rid of Reese was gravy: here is where you display your lack of knowledge. All they were really doing was making lists.

In extensive door to dooring, they found out who was responsive to the most basic points, on a candidate sight unseen. They collected contact info.

How many were solicited this past week to be Stockman delegates, or Speakman delegates?

How many receive hitpieces on David Ramadan?

How many receive Loudoun Truth?

It was a fun and useful exercise for the people who didn’t give a damn about the district or the party.

Thank you again for the trainwreck of a candidate, and for Delegate Caputo.

Barbara Munsey – YOUR CANDIDATE – GARY REESE is the ONLY person who was working to elect Caputo! (Please note: I’ve mentioned this a few times already, and yet it still hasn’t sunk in… maybe putting it in BOLD LETTERS will help you to read it this time.)

No one forced you to endorse a person who supported a Liberal Democrat for that office… and even after Gary did this, you still willfully VOTED for RINO Gary Reese who wasn’t even on the ballot! What does that say about you?

Even getting less than a third of the vote (by people as misguided as yourself, who willfully support those who endorse Liberal Democrats) is enough to swing a close election. And when the top of the ticket goes south, it hurts everyone down the line. You do understand this, right?! Please tell me you get basic turn-out numbers effect elections.

Your refusal to observe the obvious doesn’t make your version of events truth… it just exemplifies your tenantive grasp of reality.

Your poor judgment enabled you to support a RINO who helped to elect Caputo. It’s as simple as that. If your looking for reasons why Republicans loose in your area, you don’t have to look far.

My writing in that last post was almost as bad as Barbara’s voting record… ALMOST!

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Republicans seldom lose in this area.

And you are still avoiding two issues.

There was an R in the seat, until people who didn’t live here wanted their own personal R in an assemply bloc. They collected some useful info, and primaried out an R. We ended up with a D.

The candidate they used to do this was of such little importance that they didn’t bother to vet him at the most elementary levels IF they were treating him as an actual candidate, and not simply as a vehicle.

Did it make everybody decide to work their very hardest to elect the trainwreck, since that’s who got to wear the letter sewater after that puny primary?

Uhh, no.

And it certainly didn’t motivate me to work for anonymously backed candidates in this primary cycle either.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

(and you’re correct to note your misspellings in the heat of passion–you wouldn’t want to read like a “Truth” email, would you? rotflmao)

Barbara Munsey – The “R” wasn’t replaced by people outside of the district… we was replaced by the voters inside of the district. Then, in retaliation, he actively worked to elect the D who later replaced him.

Despite all of this, you continued to support that rejected politician, even after his actions were made publically known. Again, what does this say about you?

If you can support a guy who is actively supporting a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, what does this say about your judgment in this instance, or any other?

You don’t seem to be able to come to grips with this reality. You blame the other candidate for winning in a fair primary election, you call him names, you call his volunteers names… but the bottom line is, you supported someone who the voters of your district rejected, and who later worked against the Republican Party to elect his Democrat replacement… and then you have the gall to blame the Republican who attempted to stop all of this from happening…

What makes you think that anyone in their right mind would take anything you say seriously, given all of this that you’ve freely admitted to?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

“We was replaced”? Calm down hon.

Yes, I supported someone who was rejected by 179 people who happened to be home that week.

Again, why was the candidate so abysmally unvetted if he was a real candidate?

(he wasn’t a real candidate but a summer exercise, and no one cared for anything but to try to get rid of a Republican they didn’t like in another district, and make lists for future endeavors)

Wonderful new post by RWN at the tooconservative post about Loudoun Truth, discussing trying to get not only his personal but his work email removed from their list. Here is the reply he received after three tries:

“Our apologies, we will remove your address. For reference, Reagan
dropped the 11th commandment format after he kept losing against Ford. Once he dropped it and attacked Ford, he began winning. And, if you were at the LCRC meeting last night, Pat Mullins stated, nearly word for word, what Loudoun Truth has being stating – promote unity, stop the debating, don’t give democrats information. Whether Republican or not, if wrong and detrimental to the party, and will not quit when asked to stop, there are few
ways except public exploitation.”

Reese was replaced by the 179 people who came out to support his opponent in YOUR precinct alone. To be clear, the rest of the district ALSO wanted Reese dismissed from office. If you were any good at helping your candidate, or if he was seen of any value to the voters in your area, maybe you could have mustered the support of more than only 49 other people who felt Reese deserved to stay in office.

Reese’s opponent, wasn’t unvetted… in fact, using your numbers 78.5% of the republicans voting in your precinct alone wanted him to represent them in Richmond! Conversely, only 21.5% had any desire to see Reese return to his job. That’s a large group that saw no value in your candidate, nor any value in your campaigning efforts.

The desire to have Reese’s opponent elected to office was thwarted by Reese himself, who actively worked to help his Liberal Democrat replacement. Despite this, you continued to support Reese. Why?

Since you didn’t answer it before, I’ll ask the question again: What makes you think that anyone in their right mind would take anything you say seriously, given all of this that you’ve freely admitted to?

For what it’s worth, I take what Barbara says seriously. I think others here do also.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

volunteer, here is another thing you seem to be missing.

I don’t expect people to take me seriously. That’s their business.

I expect them to know it’s me.

Whether they agree with me or not.

I wasn’t going to put my name, which I can use freely because it’s mine, and I think what I say and say what I think, on that kid just because someone else had picked him out to primary Reese.

When he won that thin little primary, I wasn’t going to put may name on him simply because he was the R I was stuck with.

As things unravelled in that campaign, I was glad I hadn’t abused my name by allowing him the use of it, as more and more of my neighbors were viewed the choice before them.

It’s part of why I still CAN use my name, freely, unlike you and the other anonymous people so suddenly active around here. Because I don’t spend it on people I don’t support.

The candidate was not vetted, or he wouldn’t have been a trainwreck, which he most certainly was. The fact that he WAS a trainwreck is what did not carry him into office. Plenty of people simply did not vote, regardless of Reese’s endorsement.

The fact that you have compiled a list of things in your own mind that I am guilty of is meaningless, because you have no name. Or none that you are confident enough to use in attacking me.

I don’t like letting people use me, and my name, simply because they think they’re somehow entitled to it.

And someone who can’t use a name (for whatever reason–lack of courage, false fronts to be maintained in the real world, or the fact that you’ve trashed it by poor choices of your own in the open) doesn’t have a case with me.

I’ve obviously touched quite a nerve with you.

So there must be some truth in what I’ve said, if you’re going to work so hard to try to make me be quiet.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

Why thank you Joe! *blush* she goes again!

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

“I don’t like letting people use me, and my name, simply because they think they’re somehow entitled to it.”

Barbara, I would never “use” you (don’t treat women like that) but I would like to use your name on this new batch of ‘shine I just stilled!

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

I had a friend in high school whose family had a very good recipe.

I remember once he brought some to a party, and some spilled on his jacket. We were fussing to get something to wipe it up and he said “Oh no, it’s okay. Watch.”

He struck a match, dropped it on his sleeve, there was a WHOOOSH! and it was gone.

The shine, not the sleeve.

I’d have to taste it first, Act!

Written by BlackOut about 7 years ago.

A Vol(e). don’t every EVERY underestimate Barbara or her archival memory. You’re no match. Respect your opponent.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 7 years ago.

I do, Joe, don’t agree with her often but I take her and her opinions seriously. Say what you like about Barb (and of course, I do) she has been around this county a good time and has been active in government and politically. She does know how things work.

Barbara Munsey – Reese’s opponent was a great candidate (which is why Reese was beat so soundly) and a good guy in general. I don’t think that other people have the same bias against people who are “white” and “go to church” as you seem to possess.

And given the fact that your name and tireless campaigning seems capable of pulling in a MAXIMUM of a whopping 49 votes! (assuming that the incumbent RINO Reese had NO support in your precinct without your assistance), I’m not sure that anyone’s going to cry over the lack of your influential endorsement.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

So, going back to the straw man? Why not head over to the Muslim thread, where one guy damns a candidate with faint praise for temporarily supporting someone “in spite of” their Mormon faith, which somehow proves in their mind that they would never attack a Muslim for their faith?

I used to do sales reports for my department a long time ago, and percentages are a tricky thing: if one person who works full time in the department is taking 7 calls a day and selling 5 of them, with a sales percentage of 57% for the month, is he really doing worse than the stringer who takes four tries a month and sells 3 of them, for a glowing 75% sales rate?

Reese’s opponent in the tiny primary was a terrible candidate, which is why he couldn’t get enough of even a poor turnout in November to beat Caputo.

Barbara Munsey – I think you may want to look up what the definition of what a straw man fallacy actually is. I don’t think you understand the meaning as well as you think you do.

You keep stating that the turn-out was small (in your precinct). But, just to be clear, if it was so small why weren’t you able to turn-out enough votes to win? (In your very own neighborhood, at the very lease.)

Why is it that ALL of your ties to the neighborhood combined with Reese’s incumbent popularity, you were still only able to get 49 others to follow your lead in this? Does it make you feel as if you might not be as important as you think you are?

Everything I’ve said is completely based upon facts, figures, and the actual voter turn-out. You seem to be so obsessed with the trouncing that Reese received that you’ll do anything to ignore the fact that he was NOT a good Republican when he was in office, he was even worse once he was kicked out of office (by your “friends” and neighbors), and that he actively worked support the very Liberal Democrat Caputo by dividing the Republican vote on election day.

You can attack those who knock down your liberal heroes all you want… it just doesn’t amount to much, given the negligible source of such criticisms.

I just find it sad on a personal level that BM feels it necessary to hurl unjustifiable epithets five years later. From my understanding, no one “put Craddock” up to anything — he personally saw an opportunity to unseat a pro-choice, higher tax RINO and he worked hard to do it.

I know the Craddocks, and despite their loss in the general, they have continued on as they did before — serving the community, making even more friends, and helping in politics as much as they are able with their young children. Move on, BM, and do something positive in your community, as the Craddocks have done (attacking people you don’t like on blogs doesn’t count).

You should also remember to look at the numbers of everyone else on the ballot. It was a Republican blood bath that year. Even Gary Reese would have lost to Caputo without having his opponent split the ticket by endorsing a Democrat, and a third party candidate.

Better yet, why don’t you toss your precious name into the ring one of these days yourself.

I didn’t want to use Joe’s slanted post for my writing but I guess I’m too lazy to post right now.

I was willing to hear what Steve Stockman had to say. I’ve received 3 mailings from him. The first was a card telling me that he was running for Chairman. The second was a typed message asking me to be a delegate and enclosing a delegate form. The third was a facsimily letter thanking me for being a delegate and asking me for my support in the primaries. here’s the crux: I don’t see the plethora of campaign literature of a David Ramadan (8 mailings so far and mostly duplicates. No wonder he needed $500,000 to waste on my garbage can. He can’t keep track of who he sends his crap to) and wondered why. I believe I have it figured out. You see, he has one campaign volunteer by the name of Pam and since Joe has ridiculed her to the point of leaving the planet (yes, Joe….she was an alien) Stockman has no help. You can tell by the hand addressed envelope (from a 7 or 8 year old boy) with a return address made by a 10 year old girl. This would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. I believe that Joe said it correctly–Steve Stockman wasn’t ready and didn’t try for this nomination. He may be a nice guy but he knows zero about running a campaign. If I was a mean SOB that everyone thinks I am, I would have child protective services or labor enforcement check out this issue with the envelope addressing. On the factual side, he probably had a “project day” with his grandbabies. Sorry Steve but I just can’t take you seriously.

Now I have no one I can vote for because I refuse to vote crazy (Dem).

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

vol and 55, I’m sure he has some nice family. He was a terrible candidate, not ready to to run, and being run for no purpose than to make lists and collect some stats.

I realize you would like to make it be about me, but the fact remains we had a really bad candidate who only had enough backing to kill a Republican incumbent in a primary.

This incredibly arrogant assumptiveness that people are supposed to take that bad candidate given them and work like hell to get him elected?

Excuse me, no thanks.

It was quite like “chaos, disorder, mayhem, our work here is done.” No one took him seriously enough to make the extra effort to counteract the enormous effort to pass him off as a real candidate, as short-lived as that tremendous effort was.

And I see the same thing happening for the convention. Stockman is not a young inexperienced kid, but he has done nothing on any issue in 20 years, contrary to his lit all about the CBPO he was completely absent for. I expect to hear, if he wins the convention, that he is incredib
—————————————————
Act, they’re talking about me and my “precious name”, the one I actually use and they don’t/can’t.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

laptop has a mind of its own–I expect to hear that he is actually lots of things that he has no record of in a generation.
because some people have worked really hard to give us what they think is needed.
again, no thanks.

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

Whoops, sorry Barbara. I’m only used to seeing Monk referred to as “BM”. I think you would get a couple more votes.

My precious name is to be referred to as BPM. Further, I do not have the temperment for elected office, because the first SOB who got indignant with me would be walking funny with a size 10 boot up his ass.

Written by Lovisa about 7 years ago.

Sure nothing to be proud of, BPM!

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

“…because the first SOB who got indignant with me would be walking funny with a size 10 boot up his ass.”

Um, I think that that is a cowgirls size, Monk. I would use your fishing mode and exaggerate a wee bit.

Dude….. I’ll guarantee you that many a feller that grabbed my slight self has ended up turning it loose because he didn’t count on the farmboy development. 60 lb. haybales from sun-up to sundown make light work of boys up to 250 lbs.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 7 years ago.

That’s very kind of you, Act.

Our former Dulles Planning Commish’s husband used to have great fun on the blogs saying God had a great sense of humor in giving me such appropriate initials.

And it’s still better than some of the things I’ve been called!

Written by ACTivist about 7 years ago.

Dude-back-atcha’, haybales are lame. You want to work up the guns, try midget toss at a short peoples’ bar. They’re mean and fight back when your tossing em out the door and they tend to stick together. Little rascals are a hell of a workout and they drink and get spunky every night!

Written by Wolverine about 7 years ago.

I sure hope Mama doesn’t read this blog. She’ll find out where the Reb has been spending his spare time and lock him up in the chicken coop for a week.